4 ms·

It's inherently less portable as it relies on C++ and the cmake language is rather complicated, and thus making it harder to implement. Make and more preferable

It's inherently less portable as it relies on C++ and the cmake language is rather complicated, and thus making it harder to implement. Make and more preferable mk, are reliant on C, and are simpler languages making them easy to implement. It's simple portability calculus.

menaerus 2y ago
Portability-wise this was perhaps the case ~20 years ago but today I am not aware of any platform that doesn't have a decent C++ compiler so I don't think what you're saying is generally true. I also don't agree on the second point - I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk. It's already implemented and all you need is a compiler, which we have plenty of.
- johnnyjeans 2y ago
  > I am not aware of any platform that doesn't have a decent C++ compiler Plan 9 > I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk If you can't use the existing codebase, then you have to implement cmake from scratch, which is orders of magnitude more difficult than implementing a mk interpreter.
  - menaerus 2y ago
    I hope you're aware how loose of an argument this is. > Plan 9 is a research operating system, and exists to answer questions about ideas in OS design. As such, the Plan 9 experience is in essence an exploration of the interesting ideas it puts forth. Most of the ideas are small. > ... > Plan 9 failed, in a sense, because Unix was simply too big and too entrenched by the time Plan 9 came around. It was doomed by its predecessor. Nevertheless, its design ideas and implementation resonate deeply with me, and have provided an endless supply of inspiration for my own work. I think that everyone owes it to themselves to spend a few weeks messing around with and learning about Plan 9. The dream is kept alive by 9front, which is the most actively maintained fork of Plan 9 available today. Install it on your ThinkPad and mess around. [0] https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html

menaerus 2y ago

Portability-wise this was perhaps the case ~20 years ago but today I am not aware of any platform that doesn't have a decent C++ compiler so I don't think what you're saying is generally true. I also don't agree on the second point - I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk. It's already implemented and all you need is a compiler, which we have plenty of.

johnnyjeans 2y ago
> I am not aware of any platform that doesn't have a decent C++ compiler Plan 9 > I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk If you can't use the existing codebase, then you have to implement cmake from scratch, which is orders of magnitude more difficult than implementing a mk interpreter.
- menaerus 2y ago
  I hope you're aware how loose of an argument this is. > Plan 9 is a research operating system, and exists to answer questions about ideas in OS design. As such, the Plan 9 experience is in essence an exploration of the interesting ideas it puts forth. Most of the ideas are small. > ... > Plan 9 failed, in a sense, because Unix was simply too big and too entrenched by the time Plan 9 came around. It was doomed by its predecessor. Nevertheless, its design ideas and implementation resonate deeply with me, and have provided an endless supply of inspiration for my own work. I think that everyone owes it to themselves to spend a few weeks messing around with and learning about Plan 9. The dream is kept alive by 9front, which is the most actively maintained fork of Plan 9 available today. Install it on your ThinkPad and mess around. [0] https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html